A Standardized Tiering System

Considering Smogon's already famous for creating an incredibly well-accepted tiering system for the VG, I think it would be natural for Smogonites to take a stab at tiering decks within a rotation.

I'd also argue that there's a relative need for this. It's not as though not having a defined tier for your deck to be in is useless, but I think that the TCG community at large runs a few different definitions of what is tier 1 etc... so having a standardized system would be appreciated for clarity's sake.

One of the biggest inconsistencies in the unorganized tiering method is how some people (including myself at times) use the "tier 1.5" statement, to try and say that this deck is BL in that it's too good to be considered tier 2, but not good enough to make it to tier 1.

The question is, how does one quantifiably and unbiasedly tier decks in the TCG? I have my own ideas about how to do this, but I thought it would be interesting to open it up to the floor first to see what people think/suggest.

How would you tier decks? I can claim my deck is different from the next one because I have one more Junk Arm than he does. Or, no, small changes doesn't mean anything, and they are still the same deck.

please excuse me if I have no knowledge of tgc, the o ly reason I have cards are becuase they look cool

General deck archetypes are already accepted as belonging to a certain tier or level of success, largely based off of tournament results.

The problem is that no set language is in place to say exactly what is tier 2, 3 etc... I think everyone is pretty agreed on the top of tier 1, but when you get to the fringe of what might be considered a tier 1 deck people's definitions get a little hazy.

I think if I were to suggest a method for how to tier decks... it would probably be this.

Take the last tournament series' final results

Calculate the % Total wins for each deck

Any deck that took at least 5% of all wins is considered tier 1
-

Any deck that took multiple wins, but not over 5% of wins is considered tier 2

Any deck that only took 1 win will be evaluated based off of top cut results, as to whether it belongs in tier 2 or tier 3 (or lower)

If a deck has 1 win, and has top cut at least 1% of the time, it is considered tier 2
-

If a deck has 1 win, and has top cut less than 1% of the time, it is considered tier 3

Any deck without at least 1 win, but has top cut at least 1% of the time is considered tier 3
-

Any deck without at least 1 win, and has top cut less than 1% of the time is considered tier 4
-

Any deck without any tournament results is considered tier 5

This method obviously works well for a series of many small tournaments like Battle Roads, but should also work rather well for Cities, and even States. At tournaments like Regionals and Nationals, there are fewer overall, so it would be adapted to something like:

For Regionals, Nationals a placement in the top 4 is weighted the same as a smaller tournament win

Afterward, the above guidelines (regarding the 5% and 1% rules) apply, but are instead applied for decks down the chain of available tournament results.

Percentages will be rounded to the nearest percent.

The aim of this would be to provide clarity in discussion of decks and their places in the competitive world. This sort of tiering system would also provide a good summary list of decks that are competitive, that a player may be interested in playing. If we wanted to, Smogon could also write brief summary decklists/skeletons and strategy synopses (similar to how VG Pokemon get an explanation of movesets) to provide a comprehensive guide to the current format.

In a Smogon-esque fashion, we could also rate decks as "____ Performing" based off of their tier. This is kind of a leap... but might be a fun way to sort of brand the idea as Smogon's. ex: OP, BL, UP, RP, NP for tiers 1-5.

And for reference, based on this system, the current metagame decks would be rated thusly (based off of my tallies off Pokegym's results on the FP). I separated Troll and Fighting since the difference between the two has become more evident. Troll is Tornadus+Fighting Pokemon+Maybe Mewtwo, whereas Fighting Decks do not involve Tornadus, play far differently, and may still involve Mewtwo:

edit: It may also just work better to create a re-defined tiering method for each tournament series. They'd all be very similar, but since the available data changes so much from tournament series to series, rather than trying to create something that's standardized across all series, it might be more useful to create different standardization methods for each series.

And to update the week 5 results, and close out Battle Roads, that tiering system would come up with these results. I went through the whole thread on pokegym and retallied all the winning decks. I also split Troll and Aerodactyl/Tornadus up, because looking at one of the lists, it utilizes Darkrai and Dark Energy for free retreat and likely acceleration. Could be considered a Darkrai variant, but Darkrai is the only Dark Patch target. I think it's kind of like a Troll/Darkrai hybrid:

You can find my tallies here: http://www.mediafire.com/view/?18q1bk6f6ct78p6
They differ a little from pokegym's (when you're counting hundreds of things, miscounts happen. Mighta been both of us :P) but overall pretty similar. Mine just takes decks like "Donphan/Mewtwo" or "Donphan/Cobalion" and merges that into "Fighting" as a deck archetype.

I think if I were to suggest a method for how to tier decks... it would probably be this.

Take the last tournament series' final results

Calculate the % Total wins for each deck

Any deck that took at least 5% of all wins is considered tier 1
-

Any deck that took multiple wins, but not over 5% of wins is considered tier 2

Any deck that only took 1 win will be evaluated based off of top cut results, as to whether it belongs in tier 2 or tier 3 (or lower)

If a deck has 1 win, and has top cut at least 1% of the time, it is considered tier 2
-

If a deck has 1 win, and has top cut less than 1% of the time, it is considered tier 3

Any deck without at least 1 win, but has top cut at least 1% of the time is considered tier 3
-

Any deck without at least 1 win, and has top cut less than 1% of the time is considered tier 4
-

Any deck without any tournament results is considered tier 5

This method obviously works well for a series of many small tournaments like Battle Roads, but should also work rather well for Cities, and even States. At tournaments like Regionals and Nationals, there are fewer overall, so it would be adapted to something like:

For Regionals, Nationals a placement in the top 4 is weighted the same as a smaller tournament win

Afterward, the above guidelines (regarding the 5% and 1% rules) apply, but are instead applied for decks down the chain of available tournament results.

I believe that we can tier each major preformed deck easily according to methods stated above.

HOWEVER, like the video game, we should classify EACH set of cards (or individual card), and try to classify it, so that when someone tries to make a new, creative deck, they can see what they need.
RATE EACH CARD IN TERMS OF ITS GENERAL JOB:
For example-
Emolga (Dragons Exalted)- {Colorless} Call for family(Search deck for 2 pokes and put on bench)
Job- Get strong pokemon on field and retreat.
Quality- Among the best at what it does
Problems- Easily catchered and KOed unless you can get it back into your hand
Good partner/deck- Emolga works on an ZekEels deck because he can CfF out any electrik still in the deck so that dynamotor can work, and getting out pokemon for Dynamotor's electric energies to be attached to.

I second the idea of tiering individual cards of the rotation, rather than an entire deck. Analyses for cards can state what works well with it, eg Zekrom with Eels behind its back, Garchomp+Altaria, or if it's a very flexible card that can work with many decks (such as Emolga, able to call out Basics with any energy and low cost)